Young, Stephen E. "Chapter Five: The Explicit Appeal to Jesus Tradition in Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians 2.3." Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 151-175.
Young has previously considered Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians 2.3 in brief, as it has some strong parallels to 1 Clement 13.2. Here, he presents the same sort of case, but with a focus only on the material in Polycarp. He begins with the passage in Greek (Young 2011, 151). There follows a series of cross-references to Synoptic source and non-canonical use of the ideas of each period (Young 2011, 152).
young considers the date of Polycarp's letter to be a critical issue, as dates around 117 and 135 have been suggested. Polycarp's letter Phil. 9.1-28 suggests Ignatius had been martyred very recently (Young 2011, 153). This favors the early date, while a theory of P.N. Harrison from 1936 suggests much of the letter was a later composition, closer to 135 (Young 2011, 154). Young considers Harrison's theory to rest on weak evidence. Young therefore proceeds with his analysis based on theletter belonging to the earlier time, around that of Ignatius' martyrdom, or approximately A.D. 107 (Young 2011, 158).
Young evaluates possible literary parallels to the text, observing that the parallels do not show convincing evidence for actual literary dependence (Young 2011, 159). While Young is fairly certain that Polycarp was familiar with 1 Clement, he is uncertain about actual dependence. Young is more convinced that Polycarp drew these statements from another source (Young 2011, 160). There are similarities to 1 Clement 13, but not a strong verbatim parallel (Young 2011, 161).
When the passage in Polycarp is compared to the canonical material, Young finds two of the statements with verbatim parallels, but one in Matthew 7:1 and the other in Luke 6:38. This suggests no conclusive influence of the Synoptic Gospels on Polycarp (Young 2011, 162). It makes more sense to assume, if Polycarp drew the material from somewhere, that it was not one of the written sources we have. The passage in Polycarp is artfully arranged in a memorable rhythm. Youngconsiders it fairly certain that there is a rhetorical mnemonic tactic in use (Young 2011, 166). He therefore considers it likely that Polycarp drew on an oral source, rather than a textual source. Young's conclusion is that the same oral source used in Luke 6 and 1 Clement 13 was used by Polycarp in Phil. 2.3 (Young 2011, 167). Young elaborates at length on the lack of a specific, verbatim source as he moves his case toward an oral traditional source. Yet in doing so, he tends to pull the reader firmly toward an oral tradition which depends on a verbatim quote of an otherwise undocumented oral tradition (Young 2011, 170).
Young sums up this chapter by reflecting that the method of composition probably used by Polycarp would use oral material, often selecting it rather than written material, and that use of sources would normally happen by memory (Young 2011, 173). The stable message would be drawn from somewhere, but there may be some level of verbal variation as the author re-works oral material. Young finds a focus on the main thrust of the message to be similar, whether in Matthew 5, Luke 6, or Polycarp Phil. 2 (Young 2011, 175).